W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css-masking] editorial changes

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:49:02 -0800
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0E841A5B-8A43-4F03-8AC4-186A36665E6E@adobe.com>

On Dec 11, 2013, at 6:39 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> On 12/11/2013 08:40 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:46 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>>>   1. I'd like to see mask-type and the <mask> element given their
>>>      own top-level section. They're defining a mask source, not
>>>      a mask application, as the rest of the properties are.
>> That sounds reasonable. Although, <mask> is very depending on mask-image.
>> (The only property that can reference it.)

I changed the order of the sections and made the section top-level.

>>>   2. Similarly, I'd like to see <clipPath> and 'clip-rule', which
>>>      (afaict) define a clip "source" given a separate top-level
>>>      section from 'clip' and 'clip-path', which define a clip path's
>>>      application.
>> Same applies to clip-path and <clipPath> as for mask-image and <mask>.
>> I do not object to either change but am also not in favor for
>> transforming it.
> I find it extremely confusing that 'clip-rule' and 'mask-type'
> are defined in the same section alongside 'mask-source-type'
> and 'clip-path'; it took me asking questions about them here
> to understand that these are applied to completely different
> sets of elements (one to the masked/clipped element, another
> to an SVG shape source). So please make these changes.


>>>   3. Since 'mask' now is a shorthand for both layered masks and
>>>      box-image masks, it shouldn't be under the layered masks
>>>      section.
>> The main task is still to be a shorthand for all mask-image based
>> properties. To reset the max-box-image properties as well is just
>> a secondary function.
> Fair enough. Please at least add a note to the 'mask-box-image'
> shorthand referencing 'mask' and explaining how they interact.

I added a note that explains it.

>>>   5. Would recommend shifting clipping above masking, since I'm
>>>      *guessing* we'd prefer people to clip if they can, then mask
>>>      if it's too complicated for clipping, not Mask All the Things.
>> On the one hand, yes. Clipping is easier and faster to implement.
>> From talking with designers, they prefer masking more. However,
>> I doubt that any order in the spec will influence the behavior
>> of authors. I do not care which comes first.
> It might help the tutorial authors to talk about it first,
> which might influence the authors? It's a long shot, but
> then, it's just swapping the order of sections.


>>>   6. Intro still needs work. Structure should probably be
>>>        - What is masking and clipping, and why do we care?
>>>          Focus first on their similarities, but also explain their
>>>          differences so we know which one we're interested in for which
>>>          applications.
>> This is part of the intro currently. [...]
> No, it's not really. The intro talks about masking only, up to the
> last paragraph. There's no explanation of how they are similar and
> different.
>>>       - More on Masking:
>>>           - More technical detail on masking, if needed
>> What do you think is missing?
> I don't think anything is missing, I think this is where you should
> put any more technical definitions that weren't in the first paragraph
> (which should be focused on basic concepts of clipping & masking),
> if you have any to add.
>>>       - How to mask things with CSS: what is CSS masking able to
>>>         do, and what features do I use to do it?
>> The specification gives an overview. I think we can agree that a
>> complete tutorial would not in the scope of an introduction.
> I'm not asking you to add any more information than what's there, so
> much as to restructure what's there so that it is more understandable
> to someone (like me) who doesn't know what any of these things
> (masking, clipping, or the CSS features that allow for them) are.
>> Do you have specific suggestions? [...] I am very open to specific
>> suggestions to improve this section but also don’t see that something
>> is missing. (Which could of course be a side effect of editing the spec.)
> *sigh* Okay. I guess I can try to rewrite it for you.
>>>   8. The use of 'mask source' and 'mask image' in the spec is confusing.
>>>      There need to be separate concepts for the mask introduced by the
>>>      background-inspired mask properties and by the border-image-inspired
>>>      mask properties. Once these concepts are named, defined, and
>>>      used consistently, we can have a clearer model for understanding
>>>      CSS masking.

I think the confusion is about the naming. The term “mask source” is explaining the concept of an offscreen buffer for masking. mask image is a image resource used for masking and <mask-source> is a reference to a <mask> element. Changing the names might help to avoid confusions. I’ll fix that in the next commit.

>>>   9. The definition of 'clipping path' in the Terminology section is
>>>      more confusing than helpful. Just <dfn> the first instance of
>>>      the term in the Clipping Paths section.
>> I’ll do.
> #8 is particularly important. I find the spec hard to understand
> because of it.


>>>  10. # The usage of mask-box-image corresponds to the border-image property
>>>      # of CSS Background and Borders [CSS3BG].
>>>      Except that the image is used as a mask rather than rendered on
>>>      top of the background, right? :) You should say that up front.
>> True. It could be stated explicitly.
> Then please do that.

I added a sentence explaining that the image is used as a mask.

>>> Trivialities
>>> ------------
>>>   1. "are applied; these effects" -> use a period, start new sentence


>>>   2. "any other CSS effects such as border"... I think "CSS effects"
>>>      here is rather undefined. Can we be clearer what makes something
>>>      part of this class of effects?
>> We could say "graphical effect” but we do not have a definition for
>> properties affecting the visual output of an element (which is basically
>> the case by all properties directly or indirectly).
> I don't know what you're trying to get at, so I don't know what to suggest.

Well, every property is influencing the visual appearance of an element. Masking takes place after all the visual changes.


> ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 20:49:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:37 UTC